Overpeck
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">targeted originaly by? why?</font></div><div><b style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Malcolm Hughes, another researcher ensnared by “Climategate, also Mann</font></b></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see hughes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Western U.S. may already be seeing a <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11032019/forest-wildfire-climate-change-tipping-point-study-douglas-fir-ponderosa-pines-west" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">forest dieback</a> tipping point, </b><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Overpeck</b><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> said.</b></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"Much of our western forest cover is either dying or burning, leading to irreversible changes in vegetation that, in turn, impact water supplies and natural carbon storage," he said.</font></p><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.333;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Some Tipping Points Are Already Close</font></h3><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">One of the biggest concerns is that some tipping points, like the meltdown of alpine glaciers and near-total loss of coral reefs, will be reached even if the world meets the goals of the Paris climate agreement,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> said Katherine Richardson, a climate researcher at the University of Copenhagen and co-author of the commentary.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If multiple tipping points are reached, it's questionable whether emissions reductions will be enough to </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">stabilize the climate system,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> she said.</span></b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"Another problem we have is that we have taken a cost-benefit approach,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">" she said. "Economists assume high-impact tipping points are low probability events, but we may already have passed some of them—which completely changes the way we should be doing our cost-benefit analyses.</span></b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>"In 2001, IPCC said not to worry (about tipping points) until there is 5 degrees Celsius warming, now they're saying 1 to 2 degrees. Economists have to stay on top of the science."</b></font></p><div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><figure id="file-273787" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-png" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">[map graf scary]</figure></div><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Richardson said she had just explained that morning to the Danish Parliament that some of the common tools for cutting emissions weren't proving to be effective enough, including the <b>European Union's carbon trading market </b>at its current prices.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"There are so many emissions credits floating around that using them won't have any effect on total emissions or atmospheric concentrations on a meaningful time scale. We can't wait 30 to 40 years</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">," she said. The UN Emissions Gap Report released this week "basically says we've done nothing so far."</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The new </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;">Nature</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> article reinforces other recent similar warnings, said climate scientist </span><a href="https://twitter.com/KHayhoe" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Katharine Hayhoe</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, director of the Texas Tech University Climate Science Center.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">That includes a <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">chapter</a> in the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment on "potential surprises" in the climate system</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, "The scariest thing that you'll ever read that's not by Stephen King," Hayhoe said.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>It explores climate impacts and feedback systems that we don't fully understand, she said, and "that may be far more worrisome than what we do know."</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">skep sci legit</font></div><div><p style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here we go again. It's always emails with these people.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First there was<a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm" target="blank"> "Climategate!" </a>— the misquoting, selective quoting, and uninformed quoting of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain. Emails between CRU scientists and other climate scientists around the world promised to peel back the curtain and reveal the global warming scam. Alarmist scientists had used <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.html" target="blank">"tricks" to "hide the decline"</a>! They <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html" target="blank">"can't account for the lack of warming"</a> so they have to <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-temperature-record.html" target="blank">fake the temperature data</a>! The whole thing is a hoax!</font></p><p style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not so much.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With out-of-context quoting you can make scientists say anything. And that was the case with Climategate — it suffered from an extreme lack of context. The full context of the emails simply showed scientists discussing their work openly with each other. They show that they are merely human — they are argumentative as well as congratulatory; they get angry, with each other and the contrarians who attack them and their work.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite contrarians' promise to reveal the nefarious world of scheming scientists, the larger context of emails <em>plus</em> the peer-reviewed literature merely shows how science works. The literature gives us the finished products of scientific research, while the emails give us a glimpse of the back-and-forth between scientists as they hash out their experiments, data, and interpretations, and work toward publishing their results. This science has withstood assaults like Climategate (and the nothingburger Son of Climategate: Climategate II) because there is no nefarious world to reveal here.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But that has not stopped the contrarians from trying the same thing over and over again. The latest example is the use of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests — which are designed to allow taxpayers to have access to certain government records — to litigate for the release of <em>more</em> emails. Of particular interest are the emails of one Michael E. Mann, because apparently all of climate science hinges on his work, especially the “Hockey Stick”. Show that Mann’s research is fake and the entire house of cards will crumble.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2011, the American Tradition Institute (ATI) brought a lawsuit against Dr. Mann and the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor from 1999 to 2005) for the release of his emails, claiming that as a public university professor, Mann’s emails were effectively government records that should be turned over to anyone who asked under Virginia’s FOIA law. The case went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/?utm_term=.fee2900ae275" target="blank">rejected this premise and blocked this email release</a> in 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What <em>is</em> a climate science denying outfit like ATI supposed to do? Move on to a more “compliant” state. ATI morphed into the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits" target="blank">brought a lawsuit in Arizona</a> against the University of Arizona and two of its professors: Malcolm Hughes, a coauthor of Mann’s on the famous Hockey Stick papers, and Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author on the IPCC’s fourth and fifth Assessment Reports.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EELI claims they are bringing these lawsuits in the interests of open science, to make the workings of scientific research available to all American arm-chair “scientists”. That sounds like a lofty goal. Except they also say they want the emails released in order to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits" target="blank">“embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University [of Arizona].”</a> They also have not sought data, results, or other study information — only emails. Well, that doesn’t sound very “scientific”.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One wonders, if the shoe were on the other foot, and the private correspondence and paperwork of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/27/david-schnare-forced-to-disgorge-dark-money-from-fmelc-piggy-bank" target="blank">EELI were made available</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/bitter-legal-fight-between-climate-deniers-ends-630-000-transfer-new-group-targeting-climate-scientists-and" target="blank">what might the public learn about this “charity</a>.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the end, the courts in Arizona have proved to be more compliant than in Virginia: the emails will be released. But only after hours and hours of wasted time by Drs. Hughes and Overpeck in sifting through their years of emails to cull any truly confidential information:</font></p><blockquote style=""><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits" target="blank">Source</a>)</font></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This “wasted time” is another of the unstated goals of such lawsuits: take precious time away from climate scientists’ real research by burying them in frivolous busy-work.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a preemptive move <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/michael-mann-statement-arizona-emails-released-eeli" target="blank">Michael Mann has decided to publish his own copies of the emails</a> that the U of AZ was forced to release to EELI:</font></p><blockquote style=""><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of course, I wish I did not need to do this. But since these emails will be handed over any day now to David Schnare [of EELI], it is our hope to use this exercise instead as a teaching moment and an opportunity to further public appreciation and understanding of science...</font></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">You can access Mann's emails <a href="https://climateincontext.cruelclimate.net/" target="blank">here</a>, (enter “mail_guest” for both username and password).</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In days and weeks to come, contrarians (who think they are arm-chair scientists) might sift through the U of AZ emails in hopes of finding some nugget to embarrass Mann, Hughes, Overpeck or any of the numerous scientists they email every day in their effort to understand how the climate system works. They may uncover more “tricks” used by scientists as they describe their research. There may be strong disagreements between scientists. There may be ridicule of the contrarians who pepper scientists with amateurish questions.</font></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the hoped for climate change scam will still fail to materialize from this new batch of emails. Anyone reading these emails (really reading them — not just poking at them to try to find “gotcha” phrases) will find scientists merely working together to understand the climate, and trying to find the best way to communicate what they discover to the wider world.</font></p><hr style="" /><p style="text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thanks to jg for the illustration.</font></p><p style="" /><p style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Posted by David Kirtley on Friday, 30 November, 2018</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">9/17</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">overview/sum</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/the-desperate-but-effective-attempts-to-silence-climate-scientists-9e293887c3b2"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://nexusmedianews.com/the-desperate-but-effective-attempts-to-silence-climate-scientists-9e293887c3b2</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pe<span style="letter-spacing: -0.004em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ople play dirty when they can’t win by playing fair. This is, more or less, the story of climate change denial in the United States.</span></font></div><section class="ji jj jk jl jm" style="box-sizing: inherit; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="ae jn ab df v w" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 24px; padding-right: 24px; width: 728px; max-width: 728px; margin: 0px auto;"><p id="2ec0" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">overwhelmingly agree</a> that humans are altering the climate, reaping changes with potentially <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">catastrophic consequences</a>. Climate deniers can’t dispute the data. They can’t win on facts. Instead, they impugn the credibility of scientists, a tactic which has proved both ugly and effective.</font></p><p id="eac5" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing groups are using open records laws to obtain scientists’ emails, and then misrepresenting the content of those emails to question the integrity of researchers and cast doubt on their findings, all of which has a chilling effect on scientific inquiry. But scientists have earned powerful allies in the fight to protect their research — including, by a strange set of circumstances, the Trump administration.</font></p><h2 id="ee7c" class="nc nd dx ap ao dv ne nf ng nh ni nj nk nl nm nn no" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.72em 0px -0.31em; line-height: 1.18; letter-spacing: -0.022em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Climategate” led to a wave of harassment.</font></h2><p id="24c7" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc np me nq mg nr mi ns mk nt mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0.86em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The current spate of invasive records requests back to “Climategate,” a 2009 controversy that erupted when a hacker obtained more than 1,000 emails sent and received by climatologists at East Anglia university in the United Kingdom. Parts of some emails, taken out of context, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?r=2" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">suggested</a> scientists had manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend.</font></p><p id="e1c4" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate deniers <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen.html" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">harped</a> on the leaks to paint climate scientists as ideologically motivated and dishonest. Though an official <a href="http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">inquiry</a> into the matter exonerated scientists, the damage was already done. Their calls for universities to investigate climate scientists prompted institutional <a href="http://www.science20.com/uploads/1770191916-429173860.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">probes</a>that hampered research efforts. Today, conservative advocacy groups point to “Climategate” when making open records requests.</font></p><p id="eab5" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I think anyone who looks at the whole ‘Climategate’ manufactured controversy understands now that it’s bogus, but that’s the rationale that they’ve used,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the <a href="https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</a>, a nonprofit working to protect researchers threatened by legal attacks.</font></p><p id="2499" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The <a href="https://eelegal.org/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a> (E&E), a conservative think tank with ties to <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13049/bankruptcy-documents-indicate-arch-coal-funding-climate-denial-legal-group" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">coal</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy%26_Environment_Legal_Institute#cite_note-16" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">oil</a> companies, cited “Climategate” as the impetus for its “transparency project.” In 2011, the group sued to obtain more than 10,000 emails written or received by Michael Mann, a researcher at the University of Virginia and one of the scientists implicated in “Climategate.” The Virginia Supreme Court <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">sided with</a> Mann, who <a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/news/VAsupremeStatement.php" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">lamented</a> the “coordinated assault against the scientific community by powerful vested interests.”</font></p><figure class="le lf lg lh li ex x y paragraph-image" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 56px auto 0px; clear: both;"><figcaption class="at ea lv lw hm df x y lx ly ao cp" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; max-width: 728px; text-align: center; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 10px;" /></figure><p id="bbda" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That same year, E&E requested more than a decade of emails from University of Arizona climate scientists Jonathan Overpeck and <b>Malcolm Hughes, another researcher ensnared by “Climategate</b>.” E&E’s <a href="https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014.08.28-Petitioners-Reply.pages.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">legal brief</a> alleged there is a “climate scientific-technological<b> elite”</b> which has “behaved badly” in the past, a reference to “Climategate.” In a gesture of surprising candor, E&E acknowledged that it was searching for emails to “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck,” whom it characterized as “academic climate alarmists.” That suit continues to this day.</font></p><p id="6677" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The University of Arizona <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2016/06/22/az-court-reverses-protection-for-climate-scientists/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">case</a> volleyed back and forth between the trial court and the appellate court, which recently determined the trial court had failed to consider a <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/01640.htm" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">statute</a> that protects “unpublished research data, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers” and other documents produced by researchers at Arizona public universities.</font></p><p id="7f05" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now the case will go back to the trial court, which will reevaluate the records request in light of this statute. The ruling is a pyrrhic victory for researchers and the university, who must dedicate even more time and money to fighting off E&E. “That’s basically as good as we could have hoped for,” Kurtz said. Even when scientists win, they lose.</font></p><p id="9b3d" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lawsuit has taken a hefty toll on Overpeck and Hughes. Overpeck said he spent six weeks of his sabbatical sorting through 90,000 pages of emails, explaining the case was a “grave distraction” from his work and family. Hughes spent an entire summer collecting emails, failed to attend to his work and lost a research grant as a result.</font></p><p id="0218" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These injuries are temporary. More worrisome is the long-term effect that records requests have on research. Hughes noted that, due to his involvement in the case, other scientists have been reluctant to email him. While Hughes is nearing the end of this career, he said that, were he a young man, he would “consider a different line of work or another institution.”</font></p><p id="2594" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even if E&E loses in the trial court — and it most likely will — the group will have nonetheless succeeded in bullying climate scientists. This, rather transparently, was the point. If E&E had concerns about the empirical rigor of climate research, it could have scrutinized the findings of specific studies. Instead of interrogating the final product, it went after the hastily scribed emails exchanged between colleagues.</font></p><p id="f676" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I have taught, researched and administered in academia for more than 40 years and have not seen a time in which freedom of inquiry has been more needed, or more imperiled than it is now,” Hughes wrote in a letter to University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan when E&E was working to obtain Mann’s emails. “Nothing is more likely to quash the creativity of America’s scientists than the ever-present ear of a hostile listener intent on finding, at all costs, the appearance of malfeasance. Nothing is more calculated to discourage research into topics that may challenge power interests.”</font></p><p id="2637" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today, some states are enacting policies to protect scientists. <a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText17/HouseText17/H5098.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Rhode Island</a>and <a href="https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/786399" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">North Dakota</a> recently passed laws guarding academic freedom. The Rhode Island statute specifically shields “drafts, notes, impressions, memoranda, working papers and work products” from open records requests. Kurtz hopes more states follow suit.</font></p><h2 id="a470" class="nc nd dx ap ao dv ne nf ng nh ni nj nk nl nm nn no" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.72em 0px -0.31em; line-height: 1.18; letter-spacing: -0.022em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate scientists have an unlikely ally in the Trump administration.</font></h2><p id="bacf" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc np me nq mg nr mi ns mk nt mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0.86em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the federal level, the issue becomes more complicated. The legal protections that guard the emails of federally-funded climate scientists also shield government employees, including those working for the president. As a result, climate scientists have an unlikely ally in the Trump administration.</font></p><p id="4dc2" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015, the conservative nonprofit <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Judicial Watch</a> made a FOIA request to obtain the emails of climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Judicial Watch has a history of harassing opponents with records requests — most notably <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html?r=0" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Hillary Clinton</a>. Its president, Tom Fitton, <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">claimed</a> the NOAA documents requested would show “the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”</font></p><p id="911f" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This case is interesting because it was actually started under the Obama administration, but the Trump administration continued it, I think, because the Trump administration recognizes that it’s important to maintain these open-records protections,” Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’s Kurtz said.</font></p><p id="cf4f" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is little reason to believe that President Trump is interested in protecting researchers. His EPA transition team included lawyers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/david-schnare" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">David Schnare</a> and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Christopher Horner</a>, both of whom have a history of harassing climate scientists with open-records requests. Rather, the Trump administration is committed to secrecy.</font></p><p id="1521" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA chief Scott Pruitt offers a prime example. Pruitt, who recently installed a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/26/epa-spending-almost-25000-to-install-a-secure-phone-booth-for-scott-pruitt/?utm_term=.550a18b2d8d9" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">$25,000 soundproof booth</a> in his office, has been sparing in his use of email, partly as a response to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?mcubz=3&r=1&mtrref=www.google.com" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">2014 open-records request</a> that revealed his close ties with the fossil fuel industry. “The Trump administration, I don’t think, is eager to be turning things over under open-record laws,” Kurtz said.</font></p><figure class="le lf lg lh li ex x y paragraph-image" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 56px auto 0px; clear: both;"><figcaption class="at ea lv lw hm df x y lx ly ao cp" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; max-width: 728px; text-align: center; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2015. Source: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/22007612@N05" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Gage Skidmore</a></font></figcaption></figure><p id="4b5d" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The rationale for protecting scientists’ emails from public disclosure is simple. FOIA was enacted to make government more transparent, but it also threatened to discourage open conversations among federal employees. Judges have interpreted the law to exclude these conversations from records requests — what’s known as <a href="https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f9fe6beef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">deliberative process privilege</a>.</font></p><p id="0c51" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The deliberative process privilege was designed to allow agency employees to have freedom to communicate with each other and toss around ideas and engage in devil’s advocate debates and what-if arguments and really feel like they can be candid with each other,” Kurtz said. “In addition, there’s the rationale that people might toss out ideas that are later determined to be bad ideas and never implemented, and if you produce all those emails, it’s really going to confuse the public.”</font></p><p id="6231" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The NOAA suit was settled in August. “The trial court judge agreed that the emails in the NOAA case were exactly the sort of emails that this deliberative process privilege was designed to protect,” Kurtz said. Judicial Watch declined to appeal to the ruling.</font></p><p id="240d" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As with the University of Arizona case, the damage was already done. If Judicial Watch had concerns about the empirical rigor of the NOAA study, it could have scrutinized the data, the method or the results — all of which were publicly available. But, the group didn’t want to debate the merits of the science. Its goal was more specific.</font></p><h2 id="65eb" class="nc nd dx ap ao dv ne nf ng nh ni nj nk nl nm nn no" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1.72em 0px -0.31em; line-height: 1.18; letter-spacing: -0.022em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Invasive records requests undermine scientific inquiry.</font></h2><p id="6830" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc np me nq mg nr mi ns mk nt mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0.86em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/09/freedom-to-bully-ucs-2015-final.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">2015 report</a> from the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> found that researchers in numerous fields — public health, environmental science, genetic engineering — face attacks from groups on both sides of the ideological spectrum. The report explains that “individuals and well-heeled special interests across the political spectrum are increasingly using broad open records requests to attack and harass scientists.” It warned that such tactics can “can curb the ability of researchers to pursue their work, chill their speech and discourage them from tackling contentious topics.”</font></p><p id="5af2" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With climate change, there is evidence that this is already happening. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000515#!" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">2015 study</a> found that climate scientists frequently downplay the gravity of their findings in response to harassment. Authors wrote that, “ in response to constant, and sometimes toxic, public challenges, scientists have over-emphasized scientific uncertainty, and have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to affect how they themselves speak, and perhaps even think, about their own research.” This erodes public understanding of science.</font></p><p id="6024" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We all lose when scientists self-censor due to continued harassment. We have a poorer understanding of the science and are less able to make good personal and policy decisions,” said Michael Halpern, head of the Center for Science and Democracy at the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>. “Scientists will be more likely to keep their heads down and refuse to publicly engage or ask contentious research questions if they don’t feel that their peers who are attacked are adequately protected.”</font></p><p id="e5a9" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How then do scientists balance privacy with transparency? Where is the line between confidentiality and obfuscation?</font></p><p id="e5a9" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: start; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="text-align: center;">[sign: what want/ after peer rev!</span><span style="text-align: center;">The Stand Up for Science Rally in Boston. Source: Josh Landis]</span></font></p><p id="ad39" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We think it’s totally appropriate to FOIA for funding information and conflict of interest information,” Kurtz said. “When you’re getting into research emails and candid communication, I think that’s really harmful.” She added, “Short of something where you have actual evidence of criminal fraud, I think those things should be protected.”</font></p><p id="ee48" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FOIA is designed to give a window into the policymaking process, but science is already transparent. “When you’re doing a peer-reviewed study, your peers are looking at your research and giving you feedback on it, and they are determining whether or not it is appropriate for publication,” said Kurtz. Scientists must publish their data, their methods, their results, and they must disclose their source of funding .</font></p><p id="3258" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“That sort of transparency is actually what you need to replicate the research, evaluate the research,” said Kurtz. “That is not happening in the policymaking field where FOIA was originally designed to operate.”</font></p><figure class="le lf lg lh li ex x y paragraph-image" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 56px auto 0px; clear: both;"><figcaption class="at ea lv lw hm df x y lx ly ao cp" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; max-width: 728px; text-align: center; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lauren Kurtz. Source: Nexus Media</font></figcaption></figure><p id="8e4b" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because science is transparent, it is also self-correcting. Researchers can interrogate, criticize and improve upon each others’ work. In 2013, Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts made <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/umass-student-exposes-serious-flaws-harvard-economists-influential-study/316138/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">headlines</a> when he found a number errors in an <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">influential study</a> authored by two Harvard economists. The paper showed that economic growth slows down in countries with high national debt, and it was used to justify austerity measures following the Great Recession. Herndon, 28, published a <a href="http://darribas.org/WooWii/Assignments/OriginalPaper.pdf" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">paper</a> which called attention to the errors and refuted its conclusions about national debt.</font></p><p id="dd44" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is how research works. Researchers evaluate and attempt to replicate the findings of their peers. They have every incentive to prove each other wrong. Herndon’s work earned him the acclaim of serious economists, weeks of fawning press coverage and a <a href="http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kbgnf0/the-colbert-report-austerity-s-spreadsheet-error---thomas-herndon" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">star turn</a> on <em class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Colbert Report. </em>Any person who could do the same for climate research would be similarly celebrated.</font></p><p id="e405" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If E&E, Judicial Watch or any other groups were to find and publicize flaws in peer-reviewed climate research, they would be doing a public service. But, overwhelmingly, the data show that humans are driving the warming trend. So instead, right-wing groups go after emails, looking to defame scientists.</font></p><p id="e797" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Scientific transparency is obviously important,” Kurtz said. “What we want to preclude is scientists having to live in a fish bowl.”</font></p></div></section><hr class="og cp hc oh oi hm oj ok ol om on" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-align: center; border: none; margin-top: 30px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><section class="ji jj jk jl jm" style="box-sizing: inherit; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="ae jn ab df v w" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 24px; padding-right: 24px; width: 728px; max-width: 728px; margin: 0px auto;"><p id="5b84" class="lz ma dx ap mb b mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm" data-selectable-paragraph="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2em 0px -0.46em; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.004em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Jeremy Deaton writes for </span><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);"><span class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Nexus Media</span></a><span class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">, a syndicated newswire covering climate, energy, policy, art and culture. You can follow him </span><a href="https://twitter.com/deaton_jeremy" class="cv bt my mz na nb" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" utf8="utf8" xmlns:data="data"><svg preserveaspectratio="\" none="none" viewbox="\" quot="quot" http="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" svg="svg" xmlns="\"><line x1="\" y1="\" x2="\" y2="\" stroke="\" rgba="rgba" quot="quot" /></svg>"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);"><span class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">@deaton_jeremy</span></a><span class="mn" style="box-sizing: inherit;">.</span></font></p></div></section><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Court-Forces-University-Arizona-Release-Climate-Scientists-Traditionally-Confidential-Emails">https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Court-Forces-University-Arizona-Release-Climate-Scientists-Traditionally-Confidential-Emails</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><h1 ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">Court Forces University of Arizona to Release Climate Scientists’ Traditionally Confidential Emails</font></h1><p _ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-author" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;"><span _ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><a _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-author-link" href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/author/jeff.masters" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Dr. Jeff Masters</a> </span> · </span><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-created-date" style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">December 1, 2018</span></font></p><p _ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-created-date" style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap;">S</span>cience has suffered an unfortunate loss in a legal battle in Arizona, where the courts have ordered the public release of 13 years of email correspondence of two climate scientists who worked at the University of Arizona, Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes. The plaintiff was a coal industry-funded group called <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a> (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy%26_Environment_Legal_Institute" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">E&E Legal</a>). The group is led by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/climate/climate-emails-group-lawsuit.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">David Schnare</a>, who has made a career of suing and harassing climate scientists by abusing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state open record laws to demand masses of scientists’ emails.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">E&E’s victory was obtained <a href="https://www.csldf.org/resources/50-state-report/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">via State of Arizona open records laws</a>. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">These laws, which allow taxpayers to request copies of government records, have been misused by anti-science groups to target scientific research. In response to this abuse by both conservative and liberal groups that have economic, political, or ideological reasons for seeking to suppress particular types of scientific inquiry, most states where the issue has arisen have sought to make it clear by statute, regulation, or judicial decision that their public records or freedom of information laws do not destroy traditional areas of confidentiality that protect the scientific endeavor. Unfortunately, not all states have enacted such reforms.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The emails provide an opportunity for hostile groups to take phrases, including scientific jargon, out of context in order to mislead and confuse the public, and divert time, energy, and resources of the scientists involved away from science. A classic example of this occurred in 2009, with the public release of stolen climate scientists’ emails from the UK: the so-called “Climategate” incident. In an attempt to mislead the public regarding the existence and severity of the climate change problem, climate science deniers published misleading excerpts from the stolen materials to attack the integrity of the scientists who had published seminal studies demonstrating the high probability of human-caused climate change. Numerous investigations found no merit in the criticisms, and no evidence of any wrongdoing by the scientists whose emails had been exposed and distorted.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the current University of Arizona case, Malcolm Hughes' emails were released on November 30, and Jonathan Overpeck will have his emails released on January 15. Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails to respond to the court order, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, whose email correspondence to the Arizona scientists involved has now been released to E&E Legal, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/michael-mann-statement-arizona-emails-released-eeli" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">posted all of his emails involved online</a> on Friday, complete with commentary explaining their content.</font></p><table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; width: 835px; margin-bottom: 1rem; border-radius: 3px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 1px solid rgb(242, 242, 242);"><tr style="box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0.5rem 0.625rem 0.625rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></td></tr><tr style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><td style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0.5rem 0.625rem 0.625rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;">Figure 1.</span> Dr. Michael Mann addresses an audience at a fund raiser on behalf of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) in 2014.</font></td></tr></tbody></table><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enter the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</font></span></h2><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This latest release of climate scientists’ emails, combined with the actions of the Trump Administration to sideline climate scientists and prevent them from doing their important work, underscores the urgent need for legal protection so that climate scientists may continue their critical research in the face of threats like this. The nonprofit <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF)</a></u> was created seven years ago to help climate scientists fight back against politically-motivated and industry-funded harassment, and has been heavily involved in the Arizona open records case. CSLDF provides support and resources to the scientific community by offering free legal aid to scientists who are harassed, threatened or attacked for doing their jobs; educating researchers about their legal rights and responsibilities; sharing strategies and information about cases with attorneys; and publicizing attacks on science.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I'm proud to say that I'm a founding board member of the charity, which has helped over one hundred and fifty researchers since 2011. This past year, we've advised and defended scientists on issues ranging from defamation to death threats, and produced a number of educational resources to <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.csldf.org/resources/for-scientists/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">help researchers understand their legal rights</a></u>. Check out our website at <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">csldf.org</a></u><u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">,</a></u> and please consider <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/donate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">making a tax-deductible donation</a></u> to this worthy cause. An anonymous donor is currently matching all gifts to CSLDF up to a total of $20,000, so when you make a gift between now and the end of the year, your gift will be doubled.</font></p><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF at the AGU Meeting in Washington D.C., December 10 – 14</font></span></h2><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF will have a significant presence at the <a href="https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">AGU Fall Meeting</a> in D.C., including a booth in the Exhibit Hall (Booth 1047) where scientists can pick up copies of CSLDF's educational materials and sign-up for updates on its work.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF will also offer free and confidential one-on-one consultations with attorneys for any scientist attending the conference. To schedule a consultation, please e-mail <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="mailto:lawyer@csldf.org" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">lawyer@csldf.org.</a></u> Consultations will be held December 10-13 from 8:00 a.m-3:30 p.m. in the Marriott Marquis: Anacostia Room.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, the organization will host two sessions on legal issues pertaining to scientists: </font></p><ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem 1.25rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; list-style-position: outside; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How to Get Involved in the Rulemaking Process on Tuesday, December 11, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. </font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Science in Court: Becoming an Expert Witness and Climate Litigation on Thursday, December 13, from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. </font></li></ul><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both sessions will be held in Room 208A/B at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. More information about these sessions is available <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.csldf.org/events/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">online here</a></u>.</font></p><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Links</font></span></h2><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Michael Mann’s November 30 on-line release of his emails, along with a more detailed explanation of the legal case, is <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/michael-mann-statement-arizona-emails-released-eeli" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">here</a>.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />Desmogblog took a detailed look at David Schnare and E&E Legal in a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/27/david-schnare-forced-to-disgorge-dark-money-from-fmelc-piggy-bank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">November 27 piece.</a><br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />My 2009 blog post, <a href="https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-manufactured-doubt-industry-and-the-hacked-email-controversy.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy</a>.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />My fellow CSLDF board member, Naomi Oreskes, has co-authored an excellent book on the industry-funded attacks on science, <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Merchants of Doubt</a></u>, which has also been made into a fascinating documentary (available on Netflix.)</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...mashey </font></div><div><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">End of the cases — Schnare forced to give back his piggy bank</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On August 27, 2018, a Virginia state judge entered an order <span style="font-weight: 700;">(<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2780437%20Court%20Docs.Excerpts_Redacted.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">view excerpts</a>)</span> declaring that the “Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement” under which Schnare and his co-defendant Chaim Mandelbaum, another attorney who joined <span class="caps">FMELC</span>, would return $630,000.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The judge dismissed the three related cases “with prejudice,” meaning do not come back, but it is worth examining the cases to get more insight into Schnare's behavior.</font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schnare wastes scientists’ time, but calls requests to him “burdensome”</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the University of Arizona case mentioned above, Schnare sought to use open records laws to obtain 13 years of emails from two climate scientists at the University of Arizona. The case has been cited by legal scholars as <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3140154" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a prime example of legal abuse</a>, and it has been a massive time suck for the university and its scientists.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails,</b> and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. Recent Arizona court filings in this case show that document review is still ongoing; a court has ordered that the university produce the first set of emails by November 30. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">(In the course of this University of Arizona litigation, Schnare also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/22/david-schnare-and-jonathan-riches-mislead-arizona-court" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filed falsified documents with the court</a>, as part of his typical strategy that imposes huge timewasting efforts and expense on scientists.)</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Meanwhile, in the Virginia litigation over <span class="caps">FMELC</span>, in <span style="font-weight: 700;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2780437%20Court%20Docs.Excerpts_Redacted.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filing-2</a></span>, <span class="caps">EXHIBIT</span> B, Schnare responded to 46 requests for documents, denying almost all. Some of these may be fair, but basically, he tried to reject almost all discovery, despite his own career of trying to force far less relevant disclosures from climate scientists. A rundown of his objections: </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
5 overly broad and unduly burdensome
15 more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive effort (to get from Plaintiff)
9 unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, plaintiff already has or will have them.
2 discovery of electronically stored information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden of cost
1 vague and ambiguous
1 personal income tax returns are protected by a qualified privilege
12 has none
1 Document attached
46 Total</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">....</font></p><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>O<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">n September 14, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court decision to release two University of Arizona climate scientists’ emails had improperly ignored an Arizona statutory protection for university records.</span></b></font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=ea90038522&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">We filed a brief in the case</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in July, asking the court to protect the researchers from the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, which seeks to obtain a 13-year span of emails belonging to Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck. In the brief, we argued that the trial court decision forcing the release of scientists’ emails should be reversed because it set a dangerous precedent and would harm the scientific endeavor.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The case has been through the trial court twice and now returns for a third round. We’re optimistic that the trial court will follow the existing statute, and protect scientific research in this case. We’ll let you know the outcome of the proceedings; in the meantime, learn more about the case </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=9b7b459ee6&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">on our blog</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=6f98b94992&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">in this <em style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Ars Technica</em> article</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Science is increasingly under attack, but this is the second time in one month that a court </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=95ce00f161&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">has ruled in favor of climate scientists</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. We’re encouraged by these decisions and grateful to everyone who makes our work possible, especially those who donated to help us meet — and exceed — our ambitious $55,000 matching challenge this summer.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-weight: 700; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">You’re invited</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">! On Thursday, October 19 we’ll honor two defenders of science, attorneys Peter Fontaine and Michael Gerrard, ...</span></font><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In January we filed a brief asking the D.C. District Court to protect nine National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate scientists. On August 21, </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=97e7f679f2&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">the court ruled in favor of these researchers</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, upholding NOAA’s decision not to release its scientists’ research documents to the conservative group Judicial Watch.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/08/25/d-c-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-noaa-climate-scientists-in-foia-case/">https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/08/25/d-c-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-noaa-climate-scientists-in-foia-case/</a><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We’re thrilled by this outcome, but our work is far from done. This case is part of a growing trend where groups that dispute the reality of climate change attempt to use open records laws to access publicly-funded climate scientists’ private documents. These groups often aim to make public and manipulate scientists’ emails — including taking scientific jargon out of context — to discredit and distort peer-reviewed climate research. </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We continue to support researchers in these cases; in July, <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=f364924a9c&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">we filed a brief</a> asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect two scientists from another of these invasive open records requests.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">To learn more about how anti-science groups and individuals attack and intimidate researchers, </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=4b913d4c44&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">check out our profile of atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Her commitment to climate communication and public outreach has led to ongoing harassment and aggressive legal inquiry.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">716</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On Monday, the Arizona Board of Regents filed its final brief in an Arizona appeal over the protection of scientific research. </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=d99c42f555&e=15e3916d62" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1498579533500_2258" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">In this litigation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, a coal-funded group that disputes the veracity of climate change has sued for the records of two University of Arizona climate scientists, seeking to obstruct research and potentially embarrass them with disclosures of private information.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The case is a frustrating example of how anti-science groups try to use the legal system to attack researchers. We are currently preparing our own brief for submission in the case, in support of protecting researchers from such baseless attacks. </span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461.full</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sea level rise</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">coal-funded E&E Legal – </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=6a03182cbd&e=15e3916d62" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472836327547_76298" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">which has a core mission of discrediting climate science</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> – appeared before an Arizona trial court in an attempt to extract over $179,000 from the University of Arizona. </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">E&E Legal first sued the University for years of two climate scientists’ emails. The trial court originally ruled </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=5203cc83ce&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in March 2015</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> to protect the scientists’ emails, but </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=3788bb0bd1&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">a second decision</a><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=1ece4a4453&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in June 2016</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> completely reversed the earlier ruling. This new decision forces climate scientists to work within a fishbowl, where every informal email exchange can be picked apart by agenda-driven opponents – inhibiting scientific debate, discouraging collaboration, and chilling academic thought. (An appeal on the decision is due this fall.)</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Of course, E&E Legal is not satisfied with these outcomes alone, and the group is now trying to force the University of Arizona to pay it six figures in attorney’s fees and costs. The judge’s decision on E&E Legal’s payment claim is pending. </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">E&E Legal is part of a broader group going after climate scientists. Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann (who has experienced more than his share of politically-motivated attacks) has teamed with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles on a new book discussing these "climate wars." In </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=17462ec5c2&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><em style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">The Madhouse Effect</em></span></a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the pair present an informative and highly entertaining takedown of climate change denial. You can pre-order a copy </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=7a8f2a5c70&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-weight: 700;">here</span></a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and all proceeds will support CSLDF. </span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">guard uk no link</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits</div><div>
</div><div>Lauren Kurtz</div><div>Thursday 7 July 2016 06.00 EDT Last modified on </div><div>
</div><div>Today’s climate scientists have a lot more to worry about than peer review. Organizations with perverse financial incentives harass scientists with lawsuit after lawsuit, obstructing research and seeking to embarrass them with disclosures of private information.</div><div>
</div><div>On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Formerly named the American Tradition Institute, E&E has been described as “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.”</div><div>
</div><div>E&E originally attacked Dr. Michael Mann, whose research shows a dramatic increase in recent temperatures in a graph popularly known as the “hockey stick.” In 2011, the group sued under Virginia open records laws to obtain six years of Dr. Mann’s emails from the University of Virginia—over 10,000 messages in total. The Virginia Supreme Court denied E&E’s claims and ruled that academic research correspondence should be protected because release would cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality, and impairment of free thought and expression.”</div><div>
</div><div>E&E did not relent. Despite losing in Virginia, the group brought another open records case in Arizona to demand the same six years of emails—this time from Dr. Mann’s coauthor, University of Arizona professor Dr. Malcolm Hughes. Additionally, E&E sued for thirteen years of emails from UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, also at the University of Arizona.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>In court filings, E&E acknowledges it seeks emails that, in its words, “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.</b>” These smear tactics serve no role in scientific discourse, but are an attempt to distract, disrupt, and intimidate legitimate researchers.</div><div>
</div><div>E&E’s attorney also claimed that female scientists may, according to him, go on “mommy sabbatical” and then ignore their publicly-funded research in lieu of “sitting around folding clothes.” Given this risk, E&E argued that when scientists “abandon” their duties, emails regarding unpublished research should be released so that others can take over their work. E&E did not explain how to determine what has been “abandoned.”</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Just filing the lawsuit caused damage: Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails</span> as well as losing a grant that expired.<b> Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical.</b></div><div>
</div><div>These sorts of lawsuits, regardless of outcome, subtract months of labor from the scientific endeavor and cost public universities hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. </div><div>
</div><div>The trial court ruled in March 2015 that the University of Arizona had provided an “abundance of supporting evidence” that releasing the emails would cause harm, and the court ruled in favor of the University. However, E&E appealed, securing a rehearing in the case. </div><div>
</div><div>Last month, the court reversed its earlier decision and determined instead that disclosure was warranted. The court concluded that:</div><div>
</div><div>[a]lternative methods of communications have been and remain available to Professors Hughes and Overpeck and any other similarly situated persons should they desire to correspond in confidence regarding research projects and like endevours [sic].</div><div>
</div><div>The implication seems to be that scientists’ research discussions should be limited to the telephone.</div><div>
</div><div>In a modern workplace, email is critical to professional communication. This decision will force scientists to work in a fishbowl, with every email exchange—from offhand notes to highly technical analyses—picked apart by agenda-driven opponents. It will stifle candid scientific debate, discourage open collaboration, and chill free academic thought. The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that:</div><div>
</div><div>open records requests are increasingly being used to harass and intimidate scientists and other academic researchers, or to disrupt and delay their work.</div><div>
</div><div>In an ongoing federal case, the conservative group Judicial Watch—which claims climate science is a “fraud science”—has sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for thousands of climate scientists’ emails related to a 2015 climate change study published in Science. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who accused NOAA of having an “extreme climate change agenda,” unsuccessfully sought the same emails last year.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In addition to the Arizona case, E&E attorney Christopher Horner paired with another fossil fuel industry funded-group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to sue for the emails of climate communications professor Dr. Edward Maibach. While Dr. Maibach sought to intervene in the litigation, the judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction. Thousands of pages of Dr. Maibach’s emails were released, and plaintiffs posted them to the internet with quotes pulled out of context and commentary calling him and other climate researchers “frauds,” “snake oil salesman,” and worse.</div><div>
</div><div>To evaluate scientific merits, a critic needs final data, methodologies, and research results—not thousands of emails. The peer review process vets research results, followed by examination and replication by the scientific community. These safeguards remain the foundation of scientific review. </div><div>
</div><div>In our ongoing quest for scientific progress, every frivolous lawsuit against a scientist represents a step in the wrong direction. We must not allow groups with perverse financial incentives to jeopardize science. </div><div>
</div><div>Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), a non-profit that defends scientists against legal attack. CSLDF was founded to fund Dr. Mann’s defense, represented Dr. Maibach, and filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Arizona. Help protect the scientific endeavor by donating to CSLDF, where a trustee is currently matching all donations up to $50,000. </div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></div></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">616 news bs</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">PRESS RELEASE: AZ SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS UOFA TO RELEASE CLIMATE ALARMISTS E-MAILS</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>posted under: Climategate, Conflict of Interest, E&E Legal v. UofA, Press Releases, Schnare, Suits</div><div>
</div><div>For Immediate Release: June 16, 2016 Contact: Craig Richardson Richardson@eelegal.org 703-981-5553 AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable…</div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">une 16, 2016</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;">Contact</strong>:<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" />Craig Richardson<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" /><a href="mailto:Richardson@eelegal.org" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">Richardson@eelegal.org</a><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" />703-981-5553</p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px;"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: none;"><span style="background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Overpeck</span></strong></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable Judge James Marner, <a href="http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/21268996.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">o</a><a href="http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/21268996.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">rdered the University of Arizona to disclose certain “climate” related public records</a> sought by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), <b>correspondence of two U of A academics, Malcolm Hughes and Jonathon Overpack, who featured prominently in the 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records.</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The University had withheld these records, dating from 11 to 15 years ago, from public view since a <b>2011 Arizona Public Records Law request. The request deals predominantly with climate change communications and specifically should provide further insight into development of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, activism by university professors using public resources, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records also were subject to freedom of information laws, and the subject of stonewalled requests prior to being leaked apparently by a whistleblower concerned over those same efforts. One of these U of A employees was a co-author of a particularly controversial paper at the center of these revelations, with his lead co-author, Michael Mann, describing the activist climate agenda in several emails as “the cause”. The other U of A employee has been at the center of this “cause” by his activism relating to and arising out of his work at the University, using University resources.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">As such, these records likely include significant overlap with those withheld for years during the University of Virginia’s decade-long efforts to keep its own involvement in climate alarmism from the public.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>Commenting on the decision, Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel, and lead counsel in the case,</b> stated: “This is a landmark case that address the joint needs to ensure transparency while preventing harassment of academics. Academics have increasingly become a significant part of the policy-making process, requiring significant transparency in their activities. Judge Marner struck a wise balance.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Schnare continued, “The decision is a straight-forward and clear factual and legal ruling, the result of deep and thoughtful efforts by Judge Marner to sort through this difficult issue, which are plainly evident in the hearing transcripts. Those hearings and the briefing in this case helped refine the arguments central to striking the proper balance of scrutiny that comes with public funding, as well as concerns inherent in the transparency which is essential to research, particularly research that serves as the basis for economically and socially significant policies.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>The Court found that the University did not “specifically identify” any “substantial and/or irreparable private or public harm” that would come from releasing the documents; without such a harm, the legislature’s clear and overriding preference for transparency and public accountability prevailed.</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>The Court rejected the University’s argument that “release of the requested emails would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.”</b> The Court did not “ignore the repeated ‘chilling effect” concerns” raised by the University, but concluded that “potential harm is speculative at best, and does not overcome the presumption favoring disclosure of public records containing information about a topic as important and far-reaching as global warming and its potential causes.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The Court also addressed the University’s arguments regarding protection of academic freedom, holding “they go beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege exception to [state public records law]. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts.” This finding may be the most critical outcome of this case, regardless of the public education that results on this matter of great public interest.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Upon receipt, E&E Legal will begin review of the more than 1,700 emails and other documents, after which it will make them publicly available to all interested in the history of this important period during which academics demonstrated significant influence on the public discussion on global warming and the human influence thereon, and the often highly political “cause” being undertaken by academics, the IPCC and others.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><a href="http://www.eelegal.org/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">The Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a> (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.</p></div><div>--</div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="4"></font><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071701056.html</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>GOP Chairmen Face Off on Global Warming</b>
Public Tiff Over Probe of Study Highlights Divide on Issue
</font><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 18, <b>2005 </b>
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;" /><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) has demanded that another senior Republican, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (Tex.), call off his investigation of three scientists who have charted Earth's rapid warming in recent decades.</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The unusual public tiff between two powerful GOP lawmakers highlights the sharp divide that drives the nation's climate change debate. Barton, along with President Bush and many other House Republicans, opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and questions the science underlying such efforts. Boehlert, who backs limits on carbon dioxide pollution, said he fears such attacks could chill future scientific inquiry.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a sharply worded letter sent last week, Boehlert called Barton's probe into the findings of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes a "misguided and illegitimate investigation</span>." Mann will direct the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University as of next month, Bradley is a geosciences professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and <b>Hughes is a professor at the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Using climate records culled from tree rings, glacial-ice layers and coral-growth layers, the three professors -- whose research was funded in part by the federal government -- determined in 1998 that temperatures have skyrocketed in the past century compared with the 500 years preceding it. The three men put the figures in a graph now known as the "hockey stick," and their work helped prompt the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001 to declare the 1990s as the warmest decade in the past 1,000 years.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Barton began investigating Mann and his colleagues late last month, asking them to justify their work with documents from hundreds of studies. Noting that two Canadian researchers had questioned their findings, Barton wrote that he had opened "this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In a letter Boehlert publicly released yesterday, the veteran GOP moderate asserted that his panel has jurisdiction over climate change and that Barton is targeting these scientists because he disagrees with their conclusions.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to <b>intimidate scientists</b> rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review," Boehlert wrote.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Barton, however, said he plans to proceed with the probe. He also dismissed a July 1<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> protest by Rep. Henry A. Waxman </span></b>(Calif.), a senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who wrote Barton that some might interpret the probe "as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"Chairman Barton appreciates heated lectures from Representatives Boehlert and Waxman, two men who share a passion for global warming," committee spokesman Larry Neal said. "We <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">regret that our little request for data has given them a chill.</span> Seeking scientific truth is, indeed, too important to be imperiled by politics, and so we'll just continue to ask fair questions of honest people and see what they tell us. That's our job."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Although senior House Republicans often duel behind the scenes, they rarely issue public rebukes of each other. Boehlert's blunt language, coupled with Barton's harsh response, reveals the extent to which global warming has fostered a rift within the GOP on Capitol Hill.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"It's unusual for a chairman to write this kind of letter, but we feel the situation's unusual," said Science Committee staff director David Goldston, adding that the fight was about the need for independent scientific research, not climate change. "We are surprised at the level of sarcasm Mr. Barton's spokesman has used to respond to our serious concerns."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Several members of the scientific community have protested the probe -- 20 prominent climatologists sent Barton a letter Friday questioning why he has focused on just one of the many studies that underpin current thinking on global warming -- and the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)</span> offered to appoint an independent panel to assess the scientific consensus on climate change.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"A congressional investigation, based on the authority of the House Commerce Committee, is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating," NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone wrote in a letter to Barton.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Barton dismissed the idea as well. "We can't evaluate the idea without having seen it, and maybe it's a darned fine one, but an offer that says, 'Please just go away and leave the science to us, ahem, very intelligent professionals,' is likely to get the reception it deserves," Neal said. "We get a lot of offers to butt out from folks who would rather avoid public scrutiny, and reputable scientists wouldn't feel comfortable in the company of most of them."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the meantime, the three scientists are assembling documents in response to Barton's inquiry.</span> Mann on Friday defended his work in a letter to Barton, saying he had exposed his research to public scrutiny and shared much of his data with other scientists.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"My research findings, which support the conclusion that the earth's surface is warming, and that recent warming is due in large part to human influences, are consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change," Mann wrote. "Other scientists have replicated all facets of my research and found it accurate and reliable."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><i><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Staff researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.</font></i></p></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2015</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists’ correspondence and prepublication work.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn1" name="ftnref1" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a> In particular, in <em><b>Energy & Environment Legal Institute</b> v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al.</em>, the court upheld the University’s decision to deny large portions of open records requests by Energy & Environment Legal (known as E&E, and formerly named the American Tradition Institute or ATI), a group that has repeatedly sought to use open records laws to access troves of researchers’ private files.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn2" name="ftnref2" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> E&E has been described as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations” in part through “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,” and the group has been linked to the fossil fuel industry, “major conservative players,” and “organizations opposing action on climate change.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn3" name="ftnref3" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">State and federal open records laws promote government transparency by allowing citizens to request administrative records, with exemptions for national security, trade secrets, and similar issues. But open records laws have also become common tools of those seeking to harass scientists,<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn4" name="ftnref4" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> and open records requests for large swaths of documents (including private emails) have been made on scientists employed by the government or public universities, or who otherwise receive public funding. The scientists must then review and produce potentially thousands of documents – sometimes in a matter of days, depending on the applicable laws – or marshal a legal response explaining why the requests are invalid.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In the Arizona case, E&E filed multiple requests under Arizona’s open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Dr. Jonathan Overpeck,</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> seeking thirteen years of documents – including emails dating back to the 90s. (E&E has also unsuccessfully gone after Dr. Michael Mann’s emails in Virginia,</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn5" name="ftnref5" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[5]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> as well as many others.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn6" name="ftnref6" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[6]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">) The University of Arizona produced some documents but denied release of several thousand others.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn7" name="ftnref7" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[7]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The University stated the withheld documents contained protected intellectual property, including trade secrets and prepublication data and drafts; it also applied Arizona’s general records exemption that it was “in the best interests of the state” to withhold the documents.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn8" name="ftnref8" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[8]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The University argued that releasing the scientists’ files would undermine academic collaboration and chill researcher correspondence – particularly between publicly funded scientists and privately funded ones, who are not at risk of such disclosure. This in turn would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona’s public universities, as researchers would become more reluctant to work at Arizona public universities or with public university scientists.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn9" name="ftnref9" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[9]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="more-3117"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">E&E contested this decision and initiated litigation. In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a “transparency project,” which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called “Climategate” hacking.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn10" name="ftnref10" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a> In particular, E&E claimed that certain hacked emails involving the University of Arizona scientists and others indicated misdeeds worthy of further scrutiny,<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn11" name="ftnref11" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> ignoring that all official investigations related to “Climategate” had shown no misconduct.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn12" name="ftnref12" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a> E&E also claimed any fear that releasing emails would “chill the creative efforts of faculty” was “unfounded” and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually “encourages and rewards misbehavior.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn13" name="ftnref13" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a> E&E also acknowledged its requests sought, in part, documents that “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn14" name="ftnref14" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a></font></span></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The University of Arizona countered that protecting research correspondence and pre-publication work “is necessary to ensure Arizona’s great public universities continue their traditions of excellence in research and scholarship…. E&E’s claim threatens to rupture ordinary and customary expectations of academic confidentiality, and a ruling in favor of E&E will inevitably harm Arizona’s public universities and the scholars working in them.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn15" name="ftnref15" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a> The University also stated that E&E was seeking “to attack [researchers’] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man’s role in global climate change…. E&E request[s] that the Court help it police and control the conduct of climate scientists.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn16" name="ftnref16" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a> The University argued that, ultimately, E&E’s “briefs and other public pronouncements reveal a plan to harass scientists whose views do not accord with those of E&E and its allies, or who simply do not play by the rules of etiquette E&E nominated itself to enforce.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn17" name="ftnref17" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its March 24 decision, the Pima County Court analyzed whether the University of Arizona had committed an abuse of discretion in denying E&E’s records requests, and it sided with the University. The court found that the University could properly protect “prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary” as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn18" name="ftnref18" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[18]</a> The court also noted that the “volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,” and the court acknowledged that it spent “[m]any hours” of its own reviewing 90 “technical and esoteric” sample emails – a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails – with “at least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn19" name="ftnref19" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[19]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite losing in court, E&E was still able to create considerable damage through this litigation: the scientists had to pull and go through their records from the late 90s on, including hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and attachments.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn20" name="ftnref20" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a> Dr. Hughes said it took him over ten weeks to go through the massive number of documents E&E was seeking, taking him away from his research for a full summer (the time that he would normally use to focus on his research because he teaches during the academic year).<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn21" name="ftnref21" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a> The University and the public court system also spent a substantial amount of time and money during the years of litigation.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nonetheless, this recent Arizona decision is a significant victory. Combined with the 2014 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Dr. Mann’s case – which held that releasing faculty files could cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality and impairment of free thought and expression”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn22" name="ftnref22" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[22]</a> – the decision bolsters the consensus among courts that abusive records requests are not a permissible use of open records laws and only harm the scientific endeavor. Unfortunately, this growing consensus has not yet stopped groups like E&E, which is committed to “peppering universities around the country” with open records requests<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn23" name="ftnref23" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[23]</a> – including another one dated February 27, 2015, seeking additional records concerning the same two University of Arizona scientists.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn24" name="ftnref24" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[24]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit <a href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">http://climatesciencedefensefund.org</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in his Virginia open records litigation.</font></em></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref1" name="ftn1" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref2" name="ftn2" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref3" name="ftn3" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/climate-change-american-tradition-insitute</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref4" name="ftn4" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VRdv7Eu0HKE</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref5" name="ftn5" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref6" name="ftn6" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref7" name="ftn7" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014. Cited court filings are available from the author upon request. <em>See also</em> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref8" name="ftn8" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a> Letter from the University of Arizona to ATI (now known as E&E) dated February 5, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref9" name="ftn9" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref10" name="ftn10" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VRiv1ku0HKF</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref11" name="ftn11" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref12" name="ftn12" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-police-close-climategate/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref13" name="ftn13" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref14" name="ftn14" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref15" name="ftn15" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref16" name="ftn16" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref17" name="ftn17" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref18" name="ftn18" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[18]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref19" name="ftn19" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[19]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref20" name="ftn20" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref21" name="ftn21" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a> Conversation with author.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref22" name="ftn22" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[22]</a> http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref23" name="ftn23" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[23]</a> http://eelegal.org/?p=2958</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref24" name="ftn24" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[24]</a> http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EELI-FME-Law-AORA-Research-Funding-Conflicts-request-U-of-A.pdf</font></p><span style="text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">- See more at: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#sthash.nICaxo1Y.dpuf</font></div></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>